Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:
So. A photographer uploads images to a SOCIAL web site, twitter. Social web site have clear terms and conditions that you automatically give limited rights to the social web site, and any partners.

He fucked messed up. As a photographer myself, I feel no pity for irresponsibility.

For next time, this photographer needs to have his own website, then LINK to his website from the social website he wishes to share with. Even then it's questionable.

Don't sue people for being an idiot.

Twitter's TOS regarding uploaded images:
"You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)."


-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

From another article:
"Hoffman (Morel's lawyer) writes that Morel found himself working under difficult conditions after the earthquake and trying to find a way to transmit his photos. The manager of the hotel where he was staying helped him set up a Twitter account. She continues: 'Mr. Morel had no prior experience
with Twitter, the social networking site and did not read the Terms of Service.”

Also, Twitter's TOS gives them the right to license, but Twitter did not license the pics to AFP, rather AFP just took them and then sold them to clients around the world.

Jerry Bennett wrote:
She continues: 'Mr. Morel had no prior experience
with Twitter, the social networking site and did not read the Terms of Service.”

To quote Homer Simpson, "That's just T.S."

Jerry Bennett wrote:
Also, Twitter's TOS gives them the right to license, but Twitter did not license the pics to AFP, rather AFP just took them and then sold them to clients around the world.

Then it's Twitter's fight, not the photographer's.  He f/u when he posted the images to Twitter, regardless of the circumstances or his ignorance of the consequences.

As a photographer who has at times had to aggressively defend my own copyrights (sometimes to the point of litigation), I feel for him.  But he doesn't have a case.

I agree with Ricardo on this one.

lightonpixels wrote:

Jerry Bennett wrote:
She continues: 'Mr. Morel had no prior experience
with Twitter, the social networking site and did not read the Terms of Service.”

To quote Homer Simpson, "That's just T.S."


Then it's Twitter's fight, not the photographer's.  He f/u when he posted the images to Twitter, regardless of the circumstances or his ignorance of the consequences.

As a photographer who has at times had to aggressively defend my own copyrights (sometimes to the point of litigation), I feel for him.  But he doesn't have a case.

I agree with Ricardo on this one.

I disagree. Not that I'm a lawyer or an expert on contracts or anything, but Twitter's TOS is to protect Twitter. I don't see how it protects a third party who did not license from either Twitter or Morel.

Angela Michelle Perez wrote:
and this is why I don't have a twitter account

This is why you read... or at least assume.  I do the latter.  I just assume anyone giving something away will take anything they can from you.

Jerry Bennett wrote:
From another article:
"Hoffman (Morel's lawyer) writes that Morel found himself working under difficult conditions after the earthquake and trying to find a way to transmit his photos. The manager of the hotel where he was staying helped him set up a Twitter account. She continues: 'Mr. Morel had no prior experience
with Twitter, the social networking site and did not read the Terms of Service.”

Also, Twitter's TOS gives them the right to license, but Twitter did not license the pics to AFP, rather AFP just took them and then sold them to clients around the world.

The point that I was trying to make is that by posting images to a social website, you are granting usage to other companies.

Also,
From another article:
"Even though it believes it acted under an appropriate license, when AFP was contacted by Mr. Morel’s attorney indicating that he believed the publication of the photographs was a copyright infringement, AFP again acted in good faith to cease publication and distribution of the photographs and notified its subscribers that the photographs should not be published or distributed."

AFP did make a real attempt to cease and decease future publications with his photo. They went as far as publishing information about the photographer who took the photo and contacted their affiliates letting them know that he was the photographer and they have discontinued further publishment using his images. This guy just kept on pursuing the issue, contacting AFP's affiliates HIMSELF in an attempt to defame AFP. That to me is a little messed up. A stupid tactic in a lame attempt to try to take advantage of the situation to try to sue.

To be honest? I am glad he is getting counter sued for being an idiot. I understand he feels his rights were violated, but he went about it in the completely wrong manner.

And this is why more and more companies are pushing for laws to strip us from our rights to our images. All thanks to stupid photographers like this guy.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Jerry Bennett wrote:
I disagree. Not that I'm a lawyer or an expert on contracts or anything, but Twitter's TOS is to protect Twitter. I don't see how it protects a third party who did not license from either Twitter or Morel.

Twitter has a case. Not the photographer.
Not reading the TOS makes him an idiot and it doesn't excuse anything.
x

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Was is to report a story?

News reporting = fair use

I'm not sure about that one, but AFP isn't even pursuing that angle as far as I know.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Was is to report a story?

News reporting = fair use

So all photos created by freelance photojournalists can be used without compensation or control of the photographer because it involves a news story? I don't think so.

Columbus Photog wrote:
So all photos created by freelance photojournalists can be used without compensation or control of the photographer because it involves a news story? I don't think so.

You don't think so, but you are wrong. The Associated Press can use any image, any artwork, any type of media for news reporting. With or without the permission of the author or artist.

Frelance journalists make the $$ by offering their photos to a news organization that can BREAK the story. (aka: being the first to show off the pictures).

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Jerry Bennett wrote:
I disagree. Not that I'm a lawyer or an expert on contracts or anything, but Twitter's TOS is to protect Twitter. I don't see how it protects a third party who did not license from either Twitter or Morel.

That's my point.  Twitter's TOS offers no protection to the photographer.  If anyone has a potential beef with AFP, it's Twitter.  Morel has no legal standing to initiate action.

lightonpixels wrote:
That's my point.  Twitter's TOS offers no protection to the photographer.  If anyone has a potential beef with AFP, it's Twitter.  Morel has no legal standing to initiate action.

Know why Twitter is not pursing this with AFP? Because AFP is a news organization, and they were reporting news. Twitter has lawyers who know the law.

That’s like trying to sue CNN or FoxNews for showing pictures of a MySpace profile of a girl who committed suicide or w/e that came out recently.

If it's news reporting, it falls under the Fair Use act. Trying to sue a news organization for pictures you upload to a social website is idiotic beyond comprehension.

This is not a case of a photographer's rights being violated, it's a case of an imbecile not understanding the laws but trying to take advantage of the situation to make a quick buck.

News reporting is not theft. I'm surprised AFP stopped using his photos after he asked them to stop int he first place. a Sign of good gesture, not of requirement.

I am glad he is being countersued. I'll be damned if anyone tries to limit people's rights to have access to Associated  Free Press.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Columbus Photog wrote:

So all photos created by freelance photojournalists can be used without compensation or control of the photographer because it involves a news story? I don't think so.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:
You don't think so, but you are wrong. The Associated Press can use any image, any artwork, any type of media for news reporting. With or without the permission of the author or artist.

Frelance journalists make the $$ by offering their photos to a news organization that can BREAK the story. (aka: being the first to show off the pictures).

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

I think you are over-applying fair use.  In my understanding fair use in news reporting means a news publication doesn't have to worry about licensing or getting permission when the copyrighted work is PART of the news story.  Like a CocaCola truck crashing into a bank, they don't need to ask CocaCola permission to print their logo (which is protected by copyright).

I don't think it protects wholesale use of a copyrighted work created AT the scene of a news story.

I could be wrong, and if you have the case law I'd love to see it!  :-)

Jake Garn wrote:
I think you are over-applying fair use.  In my understanding fair use in news reporting means a news publication doesn't have to worry about licensing or getting permission when the copyrighted work is PART of the news story.  Like a CocaCola truck crashing into a bank, they don't need to ask CocaCola permission to print their logo (which is protected by copyright).

I don't think it protects wholesale use of a copyrighted work created AT the scene of a news story.

I could be wrong, and if you have the case law I'd love to see it!  :-)

Yes. You are wrong

Read the following link for clarification.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Heres the meat n potatoes of it:
“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:
Yes. You are wrong

Read the following link for clarification.

Heres the meat n potatoes of it:
“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

The law you quote exactly is why I think you're wrong.

It clearly states that the use must be incidental and fortuitous, neither of which apply in this situation.  Do you have case law or is your opinion a judgement call?  I'm not trying to harass you, I would really like to know.

Jake Garn wrote:
The law you quote exactly is why I think you're wrong.

It clearly states that the use must be incidental and fortuitous, neither of which apply in this situation.  Do you have case law or is your opinion a judgement call?  I'm not trying to harass you, I would really like to know.

Fair enough.

If you read the link that NothingIsRealButTheGirl provided to us, it explains it all to you. What I linked ere the meat n potatoes. Any one of those conditions matches the Fair Use. In order for something to fall under it, it does NOT need to meet ALL of those requires. Just any of them. In this case, it met 3 of them, not just one.

So, it does NOT state that it MUST be incidental and fortuitous, it just says that incidental and fortuitious is one of the MANY conditions in which Fair use can be acted on.

I'll provide an example in which Fair use can be applied to you in particular:
Say the model in your avatar murders someone. CNN can run a story called, "Super Model Killer", and show your Avatar on TV while they talk about the story, or be printed in news articles around the country. Your permission is not needed nor is compensation required.

I hope this makes it clear for you. I also really do reccomend going to the link provided for you, if you are serious about understanding Fair Use. If there is something about that link you do not understand, please feel free to ask here.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Joshua Mercurio  wrote:
Well, either way..... I'm not gonna use Twitter!

Lol, me neither! Well really, I'd never post high res pics to any social networking site.

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:
Fair enough.

If you read the link that NothingIsRealButTheGirl provided to us, it explains it all to you. What I linked ere the meat n potatoes. Any one of those conditions matches the Fair Use. In order for something to fall under it, it does NOT need to meet ALL of those requires. Just any of them. In this case, it met 3 of them, not just one.

So, it does NOT state that it MUST be incidental and fortuitous, it just says that incidental and fortuitious is one of the MANY conditions in which Fair use can be acted on.

I hope this makes it clear for you. I also really do reccomend going to the link provided for you, if you are serious about understanding Fair Use.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

I understand Fair Use pretty well and I'm becoming more confidant that you are mistaken.  I'll tell you why.

You are correct about it only needing to meet ONE of the conditions, but you are incorrect about this issue meeting ANY of them, let alone three.

Law is written with extreme attention to punctuation, everything in between the semi-colons are the full issues that need to be met.  Meeting parts of each issue isn't enough.  Since the use is neither brief, nor incidental and fortuitous it is simply not protected with a reading of this law.

I think you are simply misinterpreting the written law by ignoring some small, but key, points.

If there is case law that states otherwise then of course, I'd stand corrected.

Jake Garn wrote:
I understand Fair Use pretty well and I'm becoming more confidant that you are mistaken.  I'll tell you why.

You are correct about it only needing to meet ONE of the conditions, but you are incorrect about this issue meeting ANY of them, let alone three.

Law is written with extreme attention to punctuation, everything in between the semi-colons are the full issues that need to be met.  Meeting parts of each issue isn't enough.  Since the use is neither brief, nor incidental and fortuitous it is simply not protected with a reading of this law.

The only thing that can change the language (or legal interpretation) of a law is case law.  So if you have the applicable case law that changes the interpretation of this law in the way you are promoting then you could be right.  But since it doesn't sound like you have that I think you are simply misinterpreting the written law by ignoring some small, but key, points.

it does not?

Please explain why you feel that the following three points do not meet this situation:

1. news report
2. in a newsreel or broadcast
3. work located in the scene of an event being reported

Seems pretty clear cut to me, but I am curious as to why you think this issue doesn’t fall under any of these categories. Now it's me, trying to understand you. First you say you weren’t sure about the law, now you say you understand the law but lay claim that this situation doesn’t meet the criteria.

You are still focusing on ONE of the requirements, that you said it does not meet. I agree. What you don't understand is that there are OTHER requirements that it does meet. You also don't understand that no case needs to meet ALL of them, just one of them. You are still focusing on incidental and fortuitous.

You might as well say, "well, there was no teacher making a lesson plan on this, so this doesnt count under Fair use".

You are a fascinating person. I will let another step in (if they wish) to explain this to you. I cant do more than insitst that you read the link that was provided to you. If you don't, theres no point in continuing this discussion.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:
it does not?

Please explain why you feel that the following three points do not meet this situation:

1. news report
2. in a newsreel or broadcast
3. work located in the scene of an event being reported

Seems pretty clear cut to me, but I am curious as to why you think this issue doesnt fall under any of these categories.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

You are correct, those points you listed have absolutely been met.  Unfortunately those are not the points that the law requires.

Here's the rest of the law, in bold, that you are ignoring while making your interpretation.

1. "summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report"
2. "incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

Jake Garn wrote:
You are correct, those points you listed have absolutely been met.  Unfortunately those are not the points that the law requires.

Here's the rest of the law, in bold, that you are ignoring while making your interpretation.

1. "summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report"
2. "incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

Ah, I see what you mean. Yup, You could be right. I work at a law firm that also handles Copyrright law. I'll ask one of the attorneys to see what they say about this.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:

it does not?

Please explain why you feel that the following three points do not meet this situation:

1. news report
2. in a newsreel or broadcast
3. work located in the scene of an event being reported

Seems pretty clear cut to me, but I am curious as to why you think this issue doesn’t fall under any of these categories. Now it's me, trying to understand you. First you say you weren’t sure about the law, now you say you understand the law but lay claim that this situation doesn’t meet the criteria.

You are still focusing on ONE of the requirements, that you said it does not meet. I agree. What you don't understand is that there are OTHER requirements that it does meet. You also don't understand that no case needs to meet ALL of them, just one of them. You are still focusing on incidental and fortuitous.

You might as well say, "well, there was no teacher making a lesson plan on this, so this doesnt count under Fair use".

You are a fascinating person. I will let another step in (if they wish) to explain this to you. I cant do more than insitst that you read the link that was provided to you. If you don't, theres no point in continuing this discussion.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

What news organization do you work for?

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:

Ah, I see what you mean.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

:-)

Jake Garn wrote:

:-)

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Luminos wrote:

What news organization do you work for?

The same one you work at.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:
Ah, I see what you mean. Yup, You could be right. I work at a law firm that also handles Copyrright law. I'll ask one of the attorneys to see what they say about this.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

It would be very good for you to do this.

I spent ten years as a news photographer - on staff, free lance, and as an editor.

I can assure you, that unless those who publish the photo had clear rights to do so, they are not protected under "fair use".   In fact, copyright specifically protects the photographer in exactly this use.

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:

The same one you work at.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Grow up, and get a little bit of training and experience before you spout nonsense.

Luminos wrote:

It would be very good for you to do this.

I spent ten years as a news photographer - no staff, free lance, and as an editor.

I can assure you, that unless those who publish the photo had clear rights to do so, they are not protected under "fair use".   In fact, copyright specifically protects the photographer in exactly this use.

yeah. i admit, ive gotten a very interesting twist on my assumption of this. I'll make sure ot get info from an attorney who's used to this to clarify. It's a very interesting topic.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Jake Garn wrote:

You are correct, those points you listed have absolutely been met.  Unfortunately those are not the points that the law requires.

Here's the rest of the law, in bold, that you are ignoring while making your interpretation.

1. "summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report"
2. "incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

Damn you beat me to it! I went and read it and decided he was treating commas and semicolons as if they are both commas....

Luminos wrote:
Grow up, and get a little bit of training and experience before you spout nonsense.

Or, you can try to be helpful to someone that may be incorrect, rather than trying to troll?

Just a thought. Now, I can be wrong, I may not be wrong. I will try to get a definite answer tomm at work. Apparently I hit a nerve with you. I will try not to lose sleep. I promise. Also, don't take things so personal.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:
So. A photographer uploads images to a SOCIAL web site, twitter. Social web site have clear terms and conditions that you automatically give limited rights to the social web site, and any partners.

He fucked messed up. As a photographer myself, I feel no pity for irresponsibility.

For next time, this photographer needs to have his own website, then LINK to his website from the social website he wishes to share with. Even then it's questionable.

Don't sue people for being an idiot.

Twitter's TOS regarding uploaded images:
"You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)."


-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

This doesn't mean that anybody can use the images.

It means they can be on twitter, worldwide.

Before calling someone an idiot, make sure you're not one yourself.

Ricardo Sevilla 2 wrote:

yeah. i admit, ive gotten a very interesting twist on my assumption of this. I'll make sure ot get info from an attorney who's used to this to clarify. It's a very interesting topic.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com

Don't sweat it! But I sure would love to hear that attorney's take on this!

Wilde One wrote:
This doesn't mean that anybody can use the images.

It means they can be on twitter, worldwide.

Before calling someone an idiot, make sure you're not one yourself.

Sorry. If anyone uploads content to social websites then cry foul if their work is "stolen", I do think of them as an idiot.

What if this photographer had his own site to exclusively publish these images to? Might lead him to a ton of hits and promote his work while at it. Just a thought.

-RS
www.ricardosevilla.com